Trust Erosion and Identity Corrosion

No profession can survive if it loses the trust of its client; and the Army now has much to do to restore its credibility as a self-policing institution.- Don Snider, Ph.D.PROFESSOR DON SNIDER'S warning to the Army in the 2004 edition of The Future of the Army Profession is now more relevant than ever. The U.S. Army spent the last two years studying and debating what it means to be a profession and what qualifies individuals as professionals. It worked to maintain its professional status as institution and avoid becoming just one more government bureaucracy. However, the critical task that lies ahead requires the Army to identify the future threats to the profession and safeguard against them. This article tackles that task. It identifies challenges to the Army profession in 2020 and beyond, and makes recommendations to overcome them. The primary threats to the Army profession in the next decade are the erosion of the American people's trust combined with identity corrosion among Army professionals.There is a growing division between the civilians who control the military and the officers who lead it, brought on by increasing belief that the officer corps fails to self-police the institution. Senior leaders in the Army exacerbate this perception by committing the very crimes they are charged with policing. While not yet fully manifested in the opinions of the American public, evidence of this loss of trust is rapidly emerging in the form of calls for oversight by the Army's civilian masters, in both the executive and legislative branches of government.The threat of loss of trust is significant by itself, and is compounded by corrosion of professional identity in the segment of the officer corps entering its tenure as senior leaders. As the stewards of the profession, these leaders are now inhibiting their own ability to develop the future of the profession and socialize the next generation of soldiers and leaders.Both of these potential threats, the erosion of trust and the corrosion of professional identity, are by themselves significant challenges. However, set in the context of the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment of the 21st century, they could result in significant damage to readiness. Set in the context of impending period of resource reduction, the Army must find efficient solutions to prevent the bureaucratization of the institution and its decay as a profession.The Army as a ProfessionThe Army's senior leadership envisioned the purpose of the campaign as facilitating an Army-wide dialog about our Profession of Arms.1 The Army's senior leaders took a fresh look at the Army as a profession and the impacts that a decade of war had on it. The campaign sought to answer three critical questions:* What does it mean for the Army to be a profession?* What does it mean to be a professional soldier?* After nine years of war, how are individual professionals and the profession meeting these aspirations?2The campaign, headed by the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE), answered these questions and yielded important definitions and concepts that are the basis of the work laid out in chapter 2 of Army Doctrinal Publication 1 (ADP 1), The Army, and Army Doctrinal Reference Publication 1 (ADRP 1), The Army Profession. Both are now the accepted standard by which the Army measures itself as a profession.ADRP 1 describes four aspects that must be met for any occupation to be considered a profession. First, it must provide a vital service to the society that the society cannot provide for itself, but that the society must have to flourish. Second, it must provide the service by working with abstract knowledge and practice developed into human expertise. Such work is rarely routine or repetitive and generally takes years of study and experiential learning to master. It is measured by effectiveness, not efficiency. …